Reactive protests only yield real change if they develop into a coordinated and proactive movement for change that unifies social and political demands
With regard to the potential of protests to achieve change, one of the most influential claims of the last decade is the so-called Chenoweth-Stephan hypothesis of 3.5%. Based on research covering hundreds of protests, the two authors argue that the active participation in protests of more than 3.5% of the total population leads to change in the political powerholders.
The recent anti-lithium exploitation protests that were held during the summer holiday season, and in scorching temperatures, show how the mass nature of these protests satisfies that “technical” criterion.
The key reason for this mass participation is the fact that the pro-European and national democratic oppositions have found themselves on the same anti-lithium exploitation front, or that this issue of ecological security and sovereignty prompted interest and revolt in a broad social arch ranging from rural folk to academics. Apart from apparent organisational problems, the fact that these protests are being led by environmental associations and not opposition parties has added an important “jargon of authenticity” dimension to them, as well as reducing the risk of splits and mutual rivalries among the protest organisers and participants.
This sheer amount of ire and revolt is also a result of the fact that the regime fraudulently brought lithium mining back into play – after seeming to retreat in the face of the previous wave of protests, once again through a story of huge economic benefits, and with a swift decision of the otherwise famously slow and incompetent Constitutional Court to cancel the Government’s previous unconstitutional decision. What’s new is the agreement on strategic raw materials with Germany, which is intended to show that, apart from China and Russia, the EU will also get its share in the exploitation of strategic natural resources. This agreement was also viewed as a kind of indulgence to compensate for the sins of the East and the regime going it solo. The public was almost undivided in its negative response to the agreement, which it perceived as new evidence of the hypocrisy of the political West.
Still, even if relatively successful, reactive protests only yield real change if they develop into a coordinated and proactive movement for change that unifies social and political demands, or that harmonises persistent protests with a political strategy that can successfully rival the government’s counter-strategy.
Vučić’s spin and redirection of attention is already resulting in the raising of the issue of a referendum on public confidence in him, which – facing the prospect of losing power – should discipline many of his voters who otherwise favour a ban on lithium mining. In parallel with this, the leader is once again descending to speak to the nation, because populists don’t like mediators between themselves and their people, and expressing deep concern in promising a swift, non-institutional solution to his life problems. There is no alternative to him and his promised “quantum leap into the future” – at least while he holds all the levers of power.
Finally, if he can gain nothing else, he will at least buy time by restoring the hope of eco-realists that there will be no lithium exploitation until it is environmentally safe.
We will see in September whether the opposition has a unified and convincing response.
Photo: mc.rs
